Central Michigan University Leadership Standards Initiative...Central Michigan University Leadership...
Transcript of Central Michigan University Leadership Standards Initiative...Central Michigan University Leadership...
Central Michigan University
Leadership Standards Initiative:
From Concept to Implementation
Michigan CUPA-HR
October 26, 2017
Harley Blake, Manager/Professional Development Programs
Lori Hella, Associate Vice President/Human Resources
Kevin Smart, Director/Employee Relations
The CMU Leadership Standards Initiative
Why?
◦ The background – how it all began
How?
◦ Timeline and major steps
Present
◦ Where we are now
Insights
◦ 4 keys for successful implementation
Q&A
The “Why” One … Plus One … Plus 40…
Eureka! Moment ◦ No common model
◦ Prior experience doesn’t always fit
◦ Ineffective, counterproductive, stress-inducing leadership behaviors….
◦ Micromanaging
◦ Bullying
◦ Disparagement
◦ Mixed messages
◦ Belittlement, sarcasm
◦ Arrogance
◦ Condescension
◦ Poor listening skills
“…and so it begins”: The Early Phase
“Patience, Grasshopper”
Guerilla Tactics
Incident #1
12/2007
Incident #2
5/2012
White Paper
4-6/2013
AVP/HR Sponsorship
• Unofficial “GO”
• 10/2014
“Tiger Team”
• 1st Meeting
• 11/2014
Cabinet Presentation
• 1st Pitch
• 8/2015
LSI “Tiger Team”
Highly Respected Organizational Leaders
◦ Various levels (Supervisors, Managers,
Directors)
◦ All five divisions
◦ Over 350 years’ combined service
◦ Executive Assistant to the President
Facilitators: Harley Blake & Kevin Smart
Guiding Principles
ADHRTIGD
Guiding Principles
ADHRTIGD
Organic
Embedded
Initial Tiger Team Focus:
Gain Top Level Buy-In
“Shark Tank Minute”
◦ 15 minutes to capture Cabinet attention
◦ Informal Advance Communication to VP’s
◦ “No surprises” philosophy
Value Proposition
◦ Changing Leadership Demographics
◦ Declining Survey Indicators
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Performance Review Survey
◦ Sustain Organizational Culture Alignment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Service
Age
CMU Staff with
Supervisory Responsibility,
by Age and Service, as of 5/16/15
ST
SO
PA5/6
PA4
PA3
Social Security
Retirement Eligible
(25 years, Any Age)
Retirement Eligible (10 years, Age >=55)
Changing Leadership Demographics
Age distribution Service Distribution
up
to… n %
n %
25 1 0.3% 5 110 30.6%
30 11 3.1% 10 65 18.1% 48.7%
35 41 11.4% 15 63 17.5%
40 36 10.0% 20 47 13.1%
45 59 16.4% 25 20 5.6%
50 42 11.7% 30 28 7.8%
55 53 14.8% 35 10 2.8%
60 64 17.8% 40 15 4.2%
65 38 10.6% 32.3% 45 1 0.3%
70 10 2.8% 50
75 4 1.1%
359 359
Changing Leadership Demographics:
CMU Supervisors and Managers by Age and Service (5/16/15)
Declining Survey Indicators:
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Taken in 2013 and 2015 – 7 Point Scale
Included 15 Leadership Expectation Items
2015 compared to 2013:
◦ All 15 Leadership items scored lower
◦ 31.5% of Leadership items scored 4 or less
Trend going in negative direction
Declining Survey Indicators:
Performance Management Survey 74%
18%
8%
66%
19% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2010
2015
Quality of Feedback Received from your Supervisor
• 34% rate the quality of the feedback as “less than good”
• Trend going in negative direction
Very Good/Good “Okay” Poor/Very Poor
Maintaining Organization
Culture Alignment
Expectations Inform
Leadership behavior impacts
Staff engagement impacts
Service delivery impacts
Student experience impacts
Student success impacts
CMU’s reputation impacts
Central Michigan University
Leadership Standards
Team Builders
Thoughtful, Open Communicators
Service-Oriented
Proactive, Responsible and
Accountable
Courageous and Effective
Focused on Students and Passionate
about CMU
Built on a Solid Foundation
CMU Institutional Values
CMU Service Values
Senior Leadership Expectations
CMU
Leadership
Standards
Student
Success
Customer
Service
Staff
Recruiting
Succession
Preparation
Performance
Reviews
Student
Retention
Staff
Training
Staff
Retention
Hiring
Process
On-Boarding
Process
Student
Recruitment
Leadership
Development
LSI Process
Impact
Development and
Communication Phase
Cabinet Presentation
• Implementation Plan Approval 8/2016
Senior Leadership Updates
• 11/2016
Communication Plan
• 12/2016
Cabinet Presentation
• Approval – Proceed w/development
8/2015
Cabinet Presentation
• Approval to implement
2/2016
Senior Leadership Updates
• 2-5/2016
University Wide Initiative
President’s Support
◦ Accepted role as “Champion”
◦ LSI was not optional
Division Vice Presidents
◦ Reinforced message with direct reports
◦ Followed up in detail
Standards developed by TIGER Team –
not HR.
PIN Tool
Project Management
Techniques
Purpose Statement
Roles and Stakeholders
Work Breakdown Structure
Network Diagrams
Project Plan
◦ GANTT Chart
Task Date 15-Sep 30-Sep 15-Oct 20 -Oct. Oct. 26 30-Oct 14-Nov 29-Nov 14-Dec 29-Dec January February March April May June July August September Responsible
LSI Committee formed - LSI standards developed
Standards presented to cabinet and approved
Standards presented to Senior Leadership Team
Cabinet Meeting - Update on status and show website
Official Team formation: Dr. Ross - Champion Lori Hella - Sponsor Kevin Smart and Harley Blake - Project Leads Team Members - LSI Committee
Purpose and background statements written and approved by LSI committee
Letter for Senior Leadership written and approved by LSI committee, not approved by President
LSI website live from cmich.edu - https://www.cmich.edu/office_president/Pages/leadership-standards-initiative.aspx UCOMM
Rewrite Sr. Ldrshp. Letter and gain approval by by President and send to Sr. Ldrshp. Team Document Task Force
Meeting with Sr. Leadership - share rough project plan and answer initial questions Kevin and Harley
CMU Supervisors and Supervisors of Supervisors Notice - Email Document Task Force
CMU Community Notice - OUR CMU / CMU Today UCOMM
Clearly written definitions of the 6 Leadership Traits - What specific behaviors demonstrate them? What behaviors show that they aren't in line with them? Document Task Force
Complete LSI metrics - what will we measure to determine if it is making an impact/successful? Metrics Task Force
Individual Supervisor Accountability - how will we know if a supervisor is behaving according to these standards? How will they be held accountable if they are not? Accountability Task Force
Recruiting and hiring tools developed and completed Recruitment and Hiring Task Force
Onboarding Process for new hires developed, particularly supervisors
Recruitment and Hiring Task Force
Big Kickoff Event development and communication plan Training Task Force
PMT Revision #1 to incorporate Leadership Standards (wording for supervisors to be able to have conversations) Harley and Kevin
Develop Training for Supervisors of Supervisors SOS) Training Task Force
Develop Training for Supervisors Training Task Force
Big Kick Off Event - starts training (bring in speaker?) Training Task Force
Run Pilot of Trainings with Charter and others Training Task Force
Training of Supervisors of Supervisors Training Task Force
Training of Supervisors Training Task Force
Recruitment Tools implemented Recruitment and Hiring Task Force
PMT Revision #2 to incorporate Leadership Standards (fully revised system for supervisors) Harley and Kevin
LSI Systems fully up and running and being using in process throughout campus LSI Committee
Implementation Phase
Supervisor Trainings
• 3-5/2017
Leadership Updates
• 6-7/2017
Systems Live and Operational
• 7/2017
Communication Plan
• 12/2016
LSI Pilot
• 1/2017
S.O.S Trainings
• 2-3/2017
Half-Day Training Outline I. Review Purpose and Intent
II. “Clarifying the Standards” Exercise
III. Recruiting, Screening and Hiring Process
IV. Alignment with Lencioni’s “Ideal Team Player Model”
V. Kim Scott’s “Radical Candor” Model
VI. The Two Sides of Feedback: Giving and Receiving (Jack Welch and Patrick Lencioni Videos)
VII. Tools for Soliciting Feedback and Having Discussions with Others
VIII. Growth and Development (STAR Program)
IX. The Accountability Question
Ruinous
Empathy
Manipulative
Insincerity
Radical
Candor
Obnoxious
Aggression
Care Personally
Challenge
Directly
In general, taken as a whole, in which
quadrant does CMU tend to operate?
Kim Scott’s Radical Candor Model
Supervisor Self-rating LSI Standards Strongly Disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)
3.7
Supervisor Self-rating LSI Standards Strongly Disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)
Ruinous
Empathy
Manipulative
Insincerity
Radical
Candor
Obnoxious
Aggression
Care Personally
Challenge
Directly
Tips for Shifting Toward Radical Candor
Radical Candor ≠ Negative Candor
◦ Don’t lose balance!
◦ 5:1 Ratio
Quantity and quality of conversations
Soliciting Feedback: Patrick Lencioni
Vulnerability Trust
◦ Must be able to admit mistakes and
acknowledge weaknesses
◦ Must be able to ask for help
If one person can’t do it (particularly the
leader) the whole team suffers
In review
Early Phase
◦ White Paper to Initial Cabinet Proposal
◦ April 2013 – August 2015
Development and Communication Phase
◦ August 2015 – December 2016
Implementation Phase
◦ Initial Training Roll-out and Systems Made
Operational
◦ December 2016 – July 2017
Present: Where We Are Now
Training for All Staff: October 2017- ??
Ongoing monthly updates: STAR program
and LSI “Fire Up Tips!”
What People are Saying:
“The LSI is a good program that formally puts these good leadership traits and practices into a workable, understandable policy and procedures manual. As a leader, I want to employ these traits into our culture within my team.”
“The structure of the Leadership Standards is uncomplicated, and the definitions are helpful. I believe this will help me personally to be a better leader, as the clear standards are simple compass points to guide daily interactions with others.”
“Promoting a universal set of standards will help the University to be more consistent, as we can inspire others as we spread greater awareness and demonstrate these leadership qualities regularly and consistently.”
Insights from the Journey:
4 Keys to Successful Implementation
1. Top Level Buy-In
2. University-wide initiative vs. ADHRTIGD
3. Project Management techniques
4. Identify Key Stakeholders and Roles Early
Questions?